How many of us are willing to go to jail for our religious beliefs? Kim Davis, a County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses after the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, had the courage of her convictions - she was willing to have contempt for a judge rather than contempt for her God. Many have condemned her for not fulfilling her oath of office without considering the failure of Kentucky to protect her 1st Amendment (free speech and religious) rights.
The Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage came after Ms Davis had taken her oath of office. The change in the law put her between the Supreme Court and her Supreme Being. She could resign from her office and lose her livelihood, or she could stand for her beliefs while waiting for Kentucky to protect her 1st Amendment rights. Subsequently she refused to issue any marriage licenses. A suit against her was brought by two gay and two straight couples. A judge ordered her to issue the licenses but she refused and went to jail for it. Why didn’t the judge order Kentucky to make accommodation for her 1st Amendment rights?
The Supreme Court decision on marriage, based on the 14th Amendment, cannot negate our 1st Amendment rights. There is a long history in US law for accommodation of religious rights. A recent example is the Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare could not require Hobby Lobby to provide abortion coverage, because the owners of the company had a religious objection to abortion.
The judge should have recognized the conflict between the 1st and 14th Amendments in this case, understood the long history of 1st Amendment accommodation, and recognized that Ms Davis was not willing to show contempt for the highest law of the land - the Constitution. She rightly had contempt for the unconstitutional order of the judge who subsequently jailed her. This forms the basis of Governor Huckabee’s accusation of judicial tyranny.
I see too many pandering to politically correct thought with respect to the gay lobby and Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage. All they see is that Ms Davis violated her oath of office. They have no compassion for her conscience. Respect, and 1st Amendment accommodation, for Kim Davis' religious beliefs are dismissed. Kentucky must provide accommodation for Kim Davis' religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The current action of removing her name and signature on the licenses is a first step towards satisfying the 1st Amendment, since it removes the appearance of her sanctioning same-sex marriage.
After the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, "conscience clauses" were passed into law so that health-care professionals who objected to abortion on religious grounds might be excused from a legal obligation to perform them. Similar accommodations need to be made in the case of this Supreme Court ruling. Kim's case is simply helping the 1st Amendment accommodation to occur. Let's have some respect for her in that light. If she were a doctor in a Federal hospital, would we demand that she kill a baby when the mother's life was not at risk because the law had just made it legal?
Kiwi
Thanks for your thoughts Neil. I agree that our 1st Amendment rights cannot be negated by the 14th Amendment, and I also agree that accommodations should be made when appropriate in relation to religious beliefs and the recent supreme court decision. But I disagree that full accommodations should be made in Kim Davis' case, or any similar case.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that the U.S. has a long history of legally accommodating religion, but I don't think that's true. In the courts, there IS a long history of accommodating free speech, but as far as the practice of religion is concerned, the court history is relatively weak and vague. Perhaps the recent Supreme Court decision, and subsequent lawsuits, will soon provide more legal precedent for the kinds of accommodations you are looking for.
But while I say the history of the US accommodating religion is relatively small, there is still important content that the judge in the Kim Davis case could have used. You mentioned the Hobby Lobby decision. This is one of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court has made in recent years - corporations are not people, and should not be granted religious rights, period. The correctness of that supreme court decision aside, it is not particularly legally relevant to the Kim Davis case, it is only politically relevant.
More legally relevant content that the judge could have derived from (and possibly did) are laws concerning proselyting in public places. No matter the spiritual conscience and religious need to proselyte, it has been ruled that it is not allowed to proselyte in certain public places, like libraries, schools, and other locations; however, proselyting is accommodated and protected in other locations, including streets, sidewalks, and your doorstep.
Applying this to the Kim Davis case - it is not allowed for proselyting to occur in government buildings such as Davis', and certainly not proselyting by government officials. So why should it be allowed for Davis to not only use her position and location to preach her faith, but to force others to live by it?
Furthermore, Davis' refusal to facilitate the gay marriages also hindered the rights of those couples to practice their own religious (and now legal) practice of getting married, and thus denying them their rights which should also be guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.
Going forward, the courts should make appropriate accommodations to allow people to practice their religion. The decision to allow Davis' deputies to issue marriage licenses, without the need for Davis to become involved, is a good one. But honestly, it is one that should have been suggested by Davis in the first place, rather than her forcing others to practice her religion. In my opinion, her refusal is more indicative of her politics, and not her religious beliefs.
Colby, Thank you for your thoughts - good to hear from you!
Delete1. Corporations/Hobby Lobby. The right of freedom of association (in the act of incorporating) keeps the individual rights of the members of the corporation intact. Since all the owners of Hobby Lobby objected to providing abortion on religious grounds, they could not be forced as an association to surrender their rights. If your view were correct, the Corporation of the President (the LDS Church) will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
2. Political Motivation. Since Kim Davis is an elected Democrat, and the Democratic Party has been an advocate for same-sex marriage, her refusal can only have been on personal religious grounds.
3. Exercise of Religion While Serving in a State Office. I don't know if Kim proselyted in her office. She certainly did at rallies outside of the office. The biggest issue for her seemed to be the State requirement that she (the County Clerk) sign the licenses which indicated to her a personal (not just State) endorsement. I would disagree with her if this is the case because she is signing as the County Clerk, not as a Christian who opposes same-sex marriage. Never-the-less her conscience is to be respected as required by the First Amendment and a legal accommodation is appropriate.
4. Religious Accommodation. For most of our history laws have been along religious principles therefore there has been less need for "accommodation"; however, the "consience clause(s)" with respect to laws permitting abortion are extensive.
Neil, it is good to hear from you too. Do you live in Saint George now? And thanks for expounding on your thoughts in this response.
DeleteWe will just have to agree to disagree on the corporations point. I agree that "conscience clauses" should be implemented in cases like abortion, where an individual is faced with an action that is against their conscience. But a corporation providing contraception is different - there is no personal action against conscience by the members of the corporation, only fulfilling a legally required role as a corporation. So I disagree with that Supreme Court decision. I am aware of the 'Corporation of the President' name, but I feel that otherwise the LDS church falls under the category of a church, and not a corporation.
I was aware that Kim Davis is an elected Democrat, but I don't think that precludes her actions from being political. Certainly she wasn't advertising for a certain political party. Perhaps I misjudged her based on my preconceptions of what it means to stand up for your religion vs. making a political statement - but in my mind, standing for religion would be Davis, having approached her team immediately after the Supreme Court decision with her religious objections, and having worked with them to make arrangements so that she would not have to sign the documents, would then in kindness fulfill her responsibilities by allowing the marriage process to run through her office smoothly. Political stunts, unlike standing for religious convictions, are sudden, public, and contentions, which to me is more indicative of the videos I have seen of Davis' objections.
But I admit that is using my own preconceptions to judge the sincerity of Davis' beliefs. The only thing we can do is trust that her declaration is sincere, and like you say make accommodations for those beliefs.
I thought the current accommodations are fair, but I don't see any necessity for further accommodations. What are your thoughts? Are there more accommodations that you think would be necessary for Davis, or anyone in a similar situation?
I think the accommodation needs to be in law, i.e. in the Kentucky law dealing with the issuance of marriage licenses. The current work through appears to be procedural. Putting an accommodation into the law would cover all of Kentucky and therefore other County officers that may object.
DeleteYou might find it interesting that in the Book of Mormon the government ensures the freedom of belief, but not necessarily the freedom to practice every belief, if such practices were deemed as iniquity, such as lying, stealing, or practicing priestcrafts (which is a combination of those two). The Nephite government's enforcing of these laws was so strong that groups such as those in Ammonihah, and the Zoramites, had to dissent from the government in order to practice their iniquitous religion.
ReplyDeleteIn our modern law, there is no distinction between legitimate beliefs and practices, and religious practices that are in actuality iniquity and priestcraft like there is in the Book of Mormon.
Kim Davis' practice of her religion falls under the definition of iniquity and priestcraft. I don't think what she did is not an honest practice of her faith, but a deliberate misuse of religious content in order to promote a political message (and one that is economically iniquitous at that), persecute a hated class of people, and to make herself and her practices popular. Classic priestcraft.
In my blog I have written several articles about this topic in my series on the Book of Mormon and Inequality, and will continue to add to that content. If you Neil, or anyone else, is interested then take a look at these articles.
Iniquity:
http://unconventionalinquiry.blogspot.com/2015/08/understanding-inequality-in-book-of.html
Priestcraft:
http://unconventionalinquiry.blogspot.com/2015/08/priestcraft.html
Dissensions:
http://unconventionalinquiry.blogspot.com/2015/08/dissension-and-war.html
Priestcraft Today:
http://unconventionalinquiry.blogspot.com/2015/09/orchestrated-inequality-in-book-of.html
I will limit my reply to the subject of my blog.
DeleteYour comment about Kim Davis is highly judgmental and accusatory, verging on ad hominem.
“Kim Davis' practice of her religion falls under the definition of iniquity …
[Is standing up for God’s definition of marriage iniquity?]
and priestcraft. I don't think what she did is not an honest practice of her faith, but a deliberate misuse of religious content in order to promote a political message (and one that is economically iniquitous at that), …
[What “political message” are you referring to, and why is it “economically iniquitous”? I cannot comment without a clearer understanding of your terms.]
persecute a hated class of people, …
[I have not seen any evidence of such hatred - rather love of God and a desire to not violate her newfound Christian standards]
and to make herself and her practices popular.
[Governor Huckabee certainly has used her situation to highlight his message, but I don’t believe that was premeditated on her part.]
Classic priestcraft.
[“Priestcraft” - a Book of Mormon/LDS term - is to preach for gain. It was more likely she would lose her job. Where is the gain in that? If she were to now develop an income from her story I doubt that would have been premeditated.]
Kiwi
You are right. I did not provide context to the words that I was using, like iniquity and priestcraft, so it is impossible to understand what I was trying to say. I provide the requisite details in the blog series that I am working on. If you are interested, I would be eager to hear your thoughts.
DeleteIn short, I would define iniquity as a specific type of sin which creates, exacerbates, or is otherwise related to inequities, including pride and persecution. Davis' actions are only marginally related to this definition; but when I see her defend her beliefs I mainly see judgment, pride, and persecution - or iniquity. So in that sense, it is ad hominen. But I will relent and say that such a judgment from me is unfair, and moreover unrelated to the content of your message.
As far as priestcraft, take a look at the article I wrote on priestcraft, and the application to today, and then let's talk further.